Compulsory purchase orders may withstand writ challenge where delay, acquiescence, and completed transactions bar relief despite procedural objections.

A writ challenge to a compulsory purchase order may be refused where the challengers accepted refund without protest, allowed possession and auction proceedings to proceed, and approached the court after substantial delay. The commentary explains that such conduct can amount to delay, laches and acquiescence, especially where the transaction has been completed and third-party rights have intervened. It also notes that, although Chapter XX-C requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing and communication of recorded reasons, the governing Supreme Court precedent protects completed transactions from invalidation on those procedural grounds. On that footing, relief was declined against the compulsory purchase order.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging the compulsory purchase order was liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay, laches, acquiescence, and completion of the transaction. (ii) Whether the compulsory purchase order was vitiated for want of hearing and for non-communication of reasons, notwithstanding the directions in the Supreme Court decision governing completed transactions.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging the compulsory purchase order was liable to be rejected on the grounds of delay, laches, acquiescence, and completion of the transaction.

Analysis: The petitioners had accepted the earnest money refunded under the agreement without protest, allowed possession to be taken, knew of the auction proceedings, and withdrew an earlier petition so as not to impede the sale. The challenge was brought after a substantial lapse of time without any satisfactory explanation. The conduct showed acceptance of the order and of its operation, attracting the principles of delay, laches, and acquiescence. The transaction had also been implemented and third-party auction proceedings had intervened, bringing the matter within the class of completed transactions.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable in writ jurisdiction on account of delay, laches, and acquiescence, and the challenge failed on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the compulsory purchase order was vitiated for want of hearing and for non-communication of reasons, notwithstanding the directions in the Supreme Court decision governing completed transactions.

Analysis: Chapter XX-C was interpreted by the Supreme Court to require a reasonable opportunity of being heard and communication of recorded reasons, but the same decision confined its retrospective effect and expressly protected completed transactions in which possession had been taken, compensation had been paid and accepted without protest, and public auctions had occurred. On the facts, the impugned order had already been acted upon, the vendors had accepted payment, and the petitioners had accepted refund without protest. In that setting, the court declined to invalidate the order on procedural grounds.

Conclusion: The compulsory purchase order was not liable to be set aside for want of hearing or non-communication of reasons.

Final Conclusion: The writ challenge to the compulsory purchase order failed in view of the petitioners' conduct, the delay in approaching the court, and the protective scope given to completed transactions under the governing Supreme Court decision.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court may refuse relief against a compulsory purchase order where the challengers have acquiesced in the order and the transaction has been completed and acted upon, particularly when the governing precedent protects such completed transactions from invalidation on procedural grounds.

---